"Unbiased" Peach Bowl Preview ...

DoogieMcDoogerson said:

@Secfans : You're overthinking this so let me help you out. The Huskies will sell out to stop the run and make your QB throw or scramble/run. 'Bama will likely try to contain the husky rushing game but also focus on getting lots of pressure on the QB. It will be tough to do both but you might have the horses to do so. The key to the game and whether there is an actual ballgame is whether the huskies can stop the bama run game.

If the huskies get bama into 3rd down passing situations, it's gonna be a ballgame. Simple as that.

Washington has to take the shots when they are there ... but it's far more important for Washington to focus on positive plays and getting 1st downs similar to what it did against Stanford. The mistake is what we did against USC where we panicked and started trying to get a TD every single play while abandoning the run game, losing balance, and making it more difficult on the OL that had a very down day (remember, this was Eldrenkamp's first game back from an injury as well).

But thinking that UW needs to put 40 points up to win the game is missing the mark. In only 5 of 13 games this year UW has given up more than 20 points in the game and no more than 28 in any game. The UW offense needs to be targeting the 24-28 point range and lean on the defense to do what they've done all year. The surest way to get in trouble in this game is turning the ball over on offense, giving Alabama short fields, and/or defensive scores.

@Secfans

It will be difficult for me to go back and quote everything so I'll just keep it to a handful of summary points ...

1) The Baker/Thomas comparisons are as much tied to body type as they are to their individual instincts for the game. I get the logic that Budda will be a slot corner at the next level and when you look at recent games it's easy to make the parallels for what he does for UW. There were a few reasons why he was moved to that spot ... largely AFTER the injury to Joe Mathis. It certainly wasn't an indictment of his abilities as a deep safety. First, there was the emergence of Taylor Rapp and the need to get him on the field ... simply put Rapp is a better defensive option than some of our OLB options when you consider the potential of playing OLB + Budda versus Budda + Rapp. Second, if you go back and really deep dive into the Arizona game, what you'll find is that Rich Rod ran some insane number like 31 of his first 42 plays in a position where #28 PSALM Wooching was put directly into the line of fire of the play (and this came after a week where he was National Defensive Player of the Week). In our defense, PSALM almost always is on the wide side of the field and with teams running 3 wide against us the slot a large percentage of the time is also to the wide side of the field. The move of Budda down into the slot was as much about providing an option to protect PSALM (particularly in the read option game) on the outside. And, if you go back and look at what I had talked about regarding the 3 material runs against Washington this year (2 in the Arizona game by the QB and 1 by Oregon St with the jet sweep), placing Budda on the edge has gone a long way to shoring up that potential weakness for the defense ... and it is the primary weakness.

2) Regarding our DTs, I think it's important to evaluate them consistent with what they are asked to do in our scheme versus what they would be expected to do in the schemes of SEC teams. I do understand that you are targeting your audience of fans that probably watch a very small amount of PAC12 football. That being said, what the SEC does versus what the PAC does is very, very different and trying to compare the two in my opinion can become a stretch. Unfortunately, very rarely do SEC and PAC schools play each other, so it becomes a challenge to really evaluate how they compare/contrast. But getting back to the DTs, what they are asked to do is very similar in one respect to what Alabama does in keeping Rueben Foster clean ... it's all about clogging up the interior blocking of the OL and allowing the MLBs to come clean downhill and make the tackle. Personally, I don't think that the interior of the Alabama OL is anything that extraordinary (at least comparatively to that of the other portions of their team). What the DTs, and really the balance of the front 7, are trying to do is contain and box in the RB into have no options before gang tackling. Not saying that Alabama's run game is similar to that of Stanford, but I would highly recommend going back and looking at that tape to see what the defense is trying to do in the run game ... it's assignment football that is predicated on everybody doing their job. When that happens, the RB finds himself boxed in with no options on where to go. If our DTs are going to be judged by flashing through the line and making individual plays where a player stands out, you're probably looking at the wrong defense. It's not that they can't and there are plenty of individual plays this year where you see the DTs make some plays that just make you shake your head ... but that's more situation specific than it is anything else. Where I see Alabama having potential success in the running game is running to the outside (particularly behind Cam Robinson), jet sweeps, and Hurts on the QB sweeps/options/etc. However, I do agree with you that with the depth behind Hurts a massive issue for Alabama, how often they run Hurts will be a massive question mark. I do not expect Alabama to run him early in the game and only bringing the run as an option IF needed in the 2nd half.

3) SC's OL is one of those things where you had mentioned previously that games are matchup driven and I think that this is an issue here. Alabama's DL is as quick and agile as they are strong and stout. There are certainly elements of SC's OL that could be described as big, plodding, heavy, and slow. When they can push downhill they can be very good. Against Alabama, not surprising that they had a hard time blocking them given their size/speed. Against UW though, particularly after losing Mathis, we really don't have a strong individual pass rusher and that showed with some of what Darnold was able to do in that game. Since that game, we have blitzed a little more than we had previously and I'm sure if our defensive coaches were asked about it that was a miss during that game. But looking back at that game, SC really didn't have any kind of sustained success in the game nor did they really have anything on the outside. Where they really hit UW's defense (particularly after the Victor injury) was by running high/low crossing routes over the middle of the field in front/behind of our LBs. While I have tremendous respect for OJ Howard, that's the type of throw and decision making that IF Alabama tries to make those kinds of plays with Hurts I can envision a turnover or two out of it. And for the record, I don't think that UW is going to go crazy on blitzing Hurts in this game either ... I fully expect on passing downs that we're going to sit back and try to contain him forcing him to prove that he can throw the ball down the field before we go after him too hard.

4) I personally don't think that UW is similar to LSU other than both have good defenses ... my point regarding LSU and what UW can take from the game is that there are some generic things (force Hurts to beat you with his arm, sit on the short/intermediate passing game, and converge on the middle run. LSU has some pieces on the outside at DE and OLB that we simply don't have so we'll have to incorporate those lessons and fit them in with what it is that we do well.

5) I don't think anybody here is suggesting that we're going to completely stop Alabama's running game. It's not realistic. The thing that we're going to be focused on is stopping big plays out of the running game. Plus, we know that Kiffie and Sark will want to throw the ball just enough to change rhythm anyway. What do I think is realistic? Against Auburn, Alabama rushed 44 times for 203 yards (4.6 yard average). LSU was 51 for 216. These are probably good target ranges for what UW will be looking for ... something in the 45 runs for 200 yards against us. Where we're going to be targeting the slow down of Alabama will be in the passing game ... the 11 of 20 for 138 against Florida; 10 of 19 for 109 against LSU; 15 of 25 for 164 against Texas A&M; 19 of 31 for 158 against Ole Miss. If we can end the game giving up around 350-400 yards of total offense while creating enough turnovers to be in the +2 or better range in turnover margin, I would bet that our coaching staff would take that right now. Not saying that Utah is Alabama because they obviously aren't ... but the stats in that game are probably a reasonable target for what we're expecting AND the need to create turnovers.

6) Finally, with respect to the PACs OOC scheduling and Colorado, I think this is actually very interesting. There's no question that by and large this wasn't the greatest year in the PAC ... nor was it in the SEC. We're hurt out West by a couple of factors including the 9 game conference schedule as well as basic geography keeping most teams from wanting to schedule home and home series with us. Add in some of the changing scheduling nuances around the country and it's going to get worse before it gets better (for example Wisconsin backed out of a home and home with us once the Big10 went to a 9 game conference schedule). I'm excited that we're going to get to play in Atlanta in 2018 against Auburn ... but the odds that we're going to get a home/home series set up with an SEC school is slim to none. As for Colorado, they are a team that has their limits and basically overperformed this year ... not a terrible thing. Their rating has been earned though over the course of the season and I expect that they'll perform very well against an Okie State team that really struggles to run the ball and will be forced to throw against one of the best secondaries in the nation. That being said, going into the PAC title game, it was stated on our podcast that we did not expect Colorado to move the ball well on offense particularly in the running game ... so that was no surprise to us. We also said that the QB that actually scared us the most was Montez as he had the better arm to test our secondary and that Sefo would end up throwing us a few easy balls that we could take advantage of ... and he did. Colorado was never really a threat to score all night with either QB ... to me, it just wasn't a factor given the way the game was going.

I do think you're on the right track on how Washington can win this game ... so much of it will reside in the trenches. If the OL/DL can at least hold their own, then I'm really liking Washington's chances. I do think that you'll see some nuances out of us that will cause some challenges whether it be motion, formation, etc. We know that Alabama's really looking hard at our trick plays and that's great ... it's taking time away from the rest of their preparation ... and the reality is that I would expect the balance of anything we throw at the will be either new or breaking of our pre-established tendencies.